Which team was better defensively, the 04 Pistons or the 3-peat Bulls teams? Which would you rather face, the Wallace boys with Prince and Billups, or Rodman with Jordan/Pippen/Harper?
Yes, putting up a poll that doesn't tell the full facts so folks can accurately compare is pretty pathetic. If you are comparing two teams to decide who is better, then why would you not reveal who the two teams are? Hmm, maybe because you know actually knowing the teams would sway the decisions of some. You are spitting out a bunch of stats and trying to draw a conclusion from those metrics alone, without telling the full picture. That's like me asking, which center would you rather have, based on PER: Center A - 26.18 Center B - 26.13 Center C - 24.58 Center D - 23.59 Just going off the numbers some may pick Center A. However, once they find out Center A is David Robinson and the other centers are (in order) Wilt, Kareem and Hakeem, then I highly doubt those people would still pick center A. Yes, your reasoning is pathetic.
2004 Pistons allowed fewer points per game, a lower field goal percentage, and kept their opponents under 80 points in a game more times in one season than all 6 seasons the bulls won the title combined. They also had the player with the record, shared with Mutombo, for most DPY as their center.
While the Bulls were better on the perimeter (though Tay Prince, Billups and Hamilton were also very physical), the Pistons have the interior advantage. The length of Rasheed combined with Big Ben is just impossible to get by. Tay Prince was a Pippen lite defensively as well in 04. Really long, really athletic, always going hard (the classic Reggie Miller chasedown). I think the interior defense of the Pistons gives them the defensive advantage over the Bulls.
I think you are missing the point Icehouse. The reason he didn't post the names of the teams is because people's perception is different than the statistical reality. he's arguing that through various factors such as media hype, the Bulls are thought of as better than they actually were, and while we can sit here debating which team is better defensively, the only way to truly "prove" who is right is to quantify the evidence we both see using numbers.
Nailed it. I really didn't think I needed to spell that part out for him, but I guess I wasn't the only one who figured it would have to be done. I've posted numbers, a ton of them, and those numbers show defensively the 2004 Pistons were superior to the 90's Bulls.
Points given up per 100 possessions: Pistons: 95.4 Bulls: 103.3 (average off all 6 seasons winning the title) Numbers aren't even close. Team A: 101.8 Team B: 95.4
It seems anyone who's a fan of basketball related facts would say the same David, luckily in the poll where stats are used as opposed to which team you like based entirely on team name (like this one) it seems you'e in the majority.
Under which rules? The question isn't which is the better defense... its which defense would it be more difficult to put up impressive numbers on in their era?
Points given up per 100 possessions: Pistons: 95.4 Bulls: 103.3 (average off all 6 seasons winning the title) ----------------- Pistons gave up 8.9 ppg fewer than league average, Bulls averaged around 5 their 6 years. ----------------- Pistons gave up fewer than 80 points 35 times that year, all 6 of the Bulls seasons combined don't come anywhere near it. That right there tells you it was harder to put up points against the Pistons then any of the Bulls teams. Pistons also had the distinct disadvantage of handchecking being illegal, if it were legal like it was in the 90's, that 8.9 would be closer to 10, and that 35 times would probably be in the 38-40 range.
The statistical reality is based on: - An estimated metric - Stats derived from different era's, against completely different teams The statistical reality is at the end of the day, just another guess broken down to an estimate by a forumla that someone created. Statistical reality does not always tell the truth. Do you think David Robinson was better than Wilt, Kareem and Hakeem? "Statistical reality" says he was (PER). Do you think Lebron is better than Larry Bird? "Statistical reality" says that he is (higher stats in everything but rebounds, and a higher PER). Do you think Tim Duncan, Ben Wallace, Bill Walton and Sabonis were better defenders than Hakeem? "Statistical reality" says they were (the same defensive rating metric that others have been relying on for support). As I mentioned earlier, if I just used numbers then David Robinson arguably looks more impressive than Hakeem. Do you think that is the case?
Estimate? Huh? Pistons giving up a lower fg% and 3p% and allowing fewer points, both in general and compared to average league average. Those aren't estimates, its what actually happened.
Reading helps. It really does. The estimated metric would be things like defensive rating, which you touted for quite a few posts in the other thread. Things like FG% and 3p% would fall under the 2nd item, which I bolded for you so maybe you can see it this time. Just posting stats does not tell the whole story. In the thread that started all this, when someone noted that Kobe faced some harder defenses in the Finals you didn't see me going "oh no, only look at the numbers cuz only numbers matter". That would be dumb. I agreed that Kobe faced some harder defenses in the Finals, and listed my opinion as to why I think Wade would have done fine against tough defenses like that (since he proved it in earlier rounds). But just listing stats is not telling the full story, as other posters have noted. And in my honest opinion, I believe you knew that, which is why you didn't mention the teams. Whether more folks agree with me or not, it's quite evident that telling the full picture gives you a completely different set of results (dead even in this poll which mentions both teams while 74% for the Pistons in your poll which "just so happens to" not mention the teams).
Because people are voting the Bulls simply because they're the bulls......why is that concept escaping you? I like how you've said several times no one would agree with me, yet more people do then agree with you. Looks like you lost the bet my small minded friend.
